Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 12:59am PT
|
You geek are killing me!
My Powermac Dual G5 2ghz has a dead logic board that I can't afford to fix just yet so I'm falling back on a 800 mhz G4 and I'm not going to worsen my envy by testing this, cause I'll be waiting for photoshop enough in the next few months.
I ain't testing my laptop either cause It would be like racing a donkey
peace
karl
|
|
devaki
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 01:06am PT
|
macbook pro itel duo 2.33...16 sec...why am i doing this?
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 01:16am PT
|
Ray, look at the specs of the system I posted about earlier.
The MB supports upto 1333Mhz Front side bus!
Supports 1200Mhz DDR2 Ram!
Put a Dual or Quad core in there with the fast ram and a good video card...
It will Kick Ass all over a comparable AMD. Guaranteed!
Don't get me wrong, I think AMD is really good too...
but you can't build an AMD that fast.
All parts are available at Newegg too!
Put them in a Cooler Master Stacker 830 case and lookout.
|
|
Raydog
Trad climber
Boulder Colorado
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 01:32am PT
|
Shack, I know you're right, another PC friend of mine says the same thing - maybe I will go that route. Honest I'm more concerned about the next system having bomber Quadro GPU support, massive screen real estate and either Raptor HDD's or Seagate Perpendicular stuff.
Alright,
this one kicks ass on everything...
badass!
and yes it really is a dumpster PC and yes I really did start out building 'em out of pure and total junk.
smokin!!!
(that HDD that's hanging out is running the show, of course)
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 01:50am PT
|
The Raptor X has a clear cover so you can see the platters and the heads!
Run 2 of them in RAID 0 and you'll get burst transfer rates of 200MB/second! That's Smokin'!
|
|
AbeFrohman
Trad climber
new york, NY
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 10:16am PT
|
photoshop CS
xeon 3.2Ghz 2 GB RAM
xp pro
2:59!!
wow thats slow!
|
|
nutjob
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 02:16pm PT
|
Stay away from RAID 0 if you care about your data.... either disk fails and your data is lost, so double the likelihood of data loss with no redundancy.
If you need that much throughput, better to go with a RAID 1+0 approach (but requires more disks). Or go with RAID5 if you want to skimp a bit on resiliency but still be better than RAID 0.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 02:34pm PT
|
"Stay away from RAID 0 if you care about your data.... either disk fails and your data is lost, so double the likelihood of data loss with no redundancy. "
So are you saying that everyone who only runs one hard drive is better off?
If 2 drives doubles your chances of failure, then RAID 5 is 4 or 5 times as likely to fail?
Actually, with more drives, they are LESS likely to fail...
With 2 disks, each disk gets "used" half as much!
Just keep your data backed up and you'll be at no greater risk of data loss than any standard 1 drive PC.
|
|
nutjob
Trad climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 02:50pm PT
|
I didn't want to have to do this, but here goes... it's sort of like the equalization vs. no extension debates in building anchors... what do you want to optimize for?
say you have 4 disks. There are several ways you can logically configure them to optimize for speed, resiliency to disk failures, or both:
JBOD:
"Just a Bunch of Disks" where you have different drive letters in a PC, don't know how MACs do it. But you manually copy your data around to back it up. It's not real-time and transparent to the operating system like the RAID versions are.
RAID 0
stripe some data across each of the 4 disks, so each file actually exists in bits spread across each disk. Lose any one of the 4 disks, and the file/data is corrupt. But it's very fast, because your PC rotates between writing to all disks rather than waiting for any one of them.
RAID 1
mirrors each bit of data on each disk. It's totally redundant, no single point of failure. Any disk dies, and you have perfect copies of your data on the other disks. But it's just as slow (if not slower) than having a single disk.
RAID 1+0
Have two groups of two disks. You stripe data (RAID 0) within a group to increase your throughput, and then you mirror this group for resilience. If you lose a disk, then the other member disk within that group contains corrupt data. But you have the whole group mirrored in another 2 disks, so those other 2 disks together contain your complete set of data.
There are more setups, but we'll keep it simple for now.
If you really care about this stuff (and if you have multiple hard disks and have precious data, you should care), read more here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Standard_RAID_levels
This stuff is really outside my core area of expertise. Ask me about IP routing (EIGRP, OSPF, BGP) or VoIP (SIP, H.323, MGCP).
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 02:52pm PT
|
I believe he's referring to the fact that there is no mirroring with RAID 0. You have data spread across 2 drives - if one fails, neither is accessible. With later versions of RAID, 1+0, or 5 for example, the data can be spread across a set of volumes, displayed as one, but is also mirrored for redundancy.
edit: sorry, nutjob. your post wasn't up when I started typing. And you know you actually "enjoyed" doing that. =)
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 03:05pm PT
|
My questions were rhetorical.
I understand what all the different RAID levels do.
My point is:
So what if there is no redundancy in RAID 0!
There is no redundancy in a single drive setup either.
Raid 0 gives roughly double the throughput of a single drive.
We are talking about performance...not data security.
WD Raptors cost 4 times as much as a standard drive.
Too expensive to use in a RAID 5 setup.
|
|
G_Gnome
Trad climber
Knob Central
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 03:08pm PT
|
Raid 0 in the PC, automatically backed up to an external HD. Fast and safe.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 03:12pm PT
|
Yes G_Gnome...exactly.
|
|
Nefarius
Big Wall climber
Fresno, CA
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 03:29pm PT
|
4 times as much as a standard drive isn't much if you remember the days of drives that were actually expensive AND ran SCSI drives.
I remember those days. I ran a local BBS (talk about geek alert) that had 15 Gigz online, which was HUGE at the time. Half the space was Quantum Fireball 1080's, (1gig) whihc were fast, but also about a grand each. Seagate Barracudas were the only thing faster at the time, but since those were SO expensive, and since I had a friend working at Quantum...
|
|
wiclimber
Trad climber
devil's lake, wi
|
|
|
May 11, 2007 - 04:13pm PT
|
I fell asleep after 2 minutes.
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 11, 2007 - 05:34pm PT
|
Good discussion on RAID setups, gentlemen. Very informative.
In my initial post, I related that my 2 Ghz Macbook rendered the horse in 29 seconds.
Well, truth be told, that was knott accurate. It was actually 32 seconds.
Here's a cool video I made of the action (you'll be on the edge of your seat, I promise)...
http://www.oceandave.com/Macbook_PStest32x.mov
Interesting that the 2.33 Ghz Macbook Pro did it twice as fast in only 16 seconds,
since the processor isn't all that much faster - at least knott on paper...
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 11, 2007 - 08:24pm PT
|
Time to Get a Mac™
|
|
deuce4
Big Wall climber
the Southwest
|
|
|
May 12, 2007 - 11:13am PT
|
Brand spanking new Asus 2Ghz dual core (7000 series processor) PC on Photoshop Elements: 1 min 40 seconds.
|
|
Shack
Big Wall climber
Reno NV
|
|
|
May 12, 2007 - 01:33pm PT
|
I'd like to add a comment but,
I've revealed too much of my inner geek already.
|
|
Hardman Knott
Gym climber
Muir Woods National Monument, Mill Valley, Ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 16, 2007 - 06:10pm PT
|
I'm posting this as a followup to my last post (5 up).
I went to an Apple store yesterday to try the test on the new 3 Ghz, 8 core Mac Pro.
Alas, there was knott one on display. However, since I found the results of the
Macbook Pro claimed above to be astonishing, I thought I'd run the test on the
same configuration at the store (2.33 Ghz). I did the test twice, and both times
got 29 seconds (3 seconds faster than my 2 Ghz Macbook). This seems more
like it, given the 10% faster processor...
In the meantime, prepare to bow down to the mighty Mac Pro 8 core!
http://www.apple.com/macpro/
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!